The current study was designed to compare the effectiveness of TP and ET, two empirically-validated interventions designed to increase student DC/M scores. In addition, researchers investigated whether initial fluency levels (i.e., frustration vs instructional) would be associated with intervention efficacy. Results failed to show that either of the implemented interventions were effective. Limitations were explored to potentially guide future research in efforts to show that these treatments can increase DC/M scores for first-grade students. Specifically, hypotheses of set size, dose, and writing skills were put forth for future researchers to consider.

The results of this study fail to corroborate the robust evidence base of studies demonstrating the effectiveness of ET and TP for increasing math fact fluency. While the present study did not support the effectiveness of these interventions, previous research has suggested these interventions to be effective. Future researchers should continue to investigate these interventions because they are short in duration, are administered to whole classes by teachers, and require few resources to implement. In order to strengthen our confidence in the use of TP and ET, researchers should continue to explore how and when these would be successful across populations, skills, grades and settings.